Crypto CPA

@LukeFHan @actsofapostles_ 💯

Thomas Aquinas had a vision of heaven and after that he stopped writing theology, calling his previous work "straw". I believe we know exactly how he reacted to learning about Mormonism.

@DavoustBaldPate @BruceNorth46058 Stop trying to change the subject. The task at hand is what do we need to do to get you ready for your McDonald’s interview. You can’t fail again. It will break your mom’s heart. 💔😢

@CryptoCPA_ @BruceNorth46058 @ATrueMillennial You can whine about me or you can answer for your heresy. That you don't have the testicles to do the latter makes it clear that 'Latter Day Saints' aren't Christians.

Here's how a conversation between a thoughtful Trinitarian and a thoughtful Latter-day Saint always goes: The Trinitarian brings up the Creeds. The Latter-day Saint says "I don't accept the Creeds as authoritative because they are unscriptural and unauthorized." The Trinitarian insists they are simply restatements of truths taught in scripture. This starts the back and forth from the Bible, mainly from the New Testament. The Trinitarian brings a verse saying, "I and my Father are one." The Latter-day Saint explains that "oneness" of the Godhead members doesn't necessarily imply a full Trinitarian consubstantiation. After all, Jesus also said husband and wife ought to be "one." And He prayed for His disciples to be one even as He and the Father are one. Surely that doesn't mean we all become consubstantial entities in the Trinity? Then the Trinitarian side talks about "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one." Then the Latter-day Saint responds with "Let us create man in our own image." Then the Trinitarian brings up "Philip, if you've seen me, you've seen the Father" and other verses. The Latter-day Saint then brings up verses about the express likeness: "this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ," the Gethsemane prayer—"not my will, but thine, be done," the baptism of Jesus, "why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God," "the Father is greater than I," and the idea that the Father knows the timing of the Second Coming but not the Son, etc. Then the Trinitarian responds with, "Well, He's carefully crafting His words for the people and it's the Person of the Son speaking, so in a sense it's true," and brings up "Before Abraham was, I AM," indicating Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. And the Latter-day Saint says, "Yes, we believe that, too. But that doesn't mean He is the same as the Father." Also, what of the first, second, and third-century disciples—some of whom walked with Jesus Himself—who didn't hold a Trinitarian formulation? Were they not Christian? And they go round and round, pulling up the Greek and the Aramaic, and both come away at the end more sure of their own positions than that the other's is the correct understanding. At the end of the day, an honest neutral observer of this discussion knows one thing: the Trinitarian theory is not self-evident from the Bible alone. As the Harper Bible Dictionary itself states, "the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament]." There is ample room for an intelligent person to interpret the text either way, and neither is proven correct. The best a Trinitarian or Latter-day Saint can say about the Bible is "my position is evident to me." But through all this back and forth, the Latter-day Saint has been debating with one hand tied behind his back. Because although we love the Bible and accept it as the word of God, we are not reliant only on the Bible. We believe God has given additional clarification on the ambiguity of His inspired but imperfectly translated earlier words in the Holy Bible. God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith. And just as they appeared to the martyr Stephen, they appeared as two distinct Personages, with Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Then in the Book of Mormon and subsequent revelations, Jesus explicitly and directly set forth His nature, removing all ambiguity. And these truths are confirmed to us by personal revelation from God Himself. This is not a contradiction of the Bible, just a contradiction of the Creedalist understanding of the Bible. We respect our Catholic and Protestant brothers and sisters who read the Bible through a different lens and understand the verses differently than us. Even though their understanding is opposed to what we believe is substantiated in Holy Scripture, we recognize their efforts to follow the Savior to the best of their ability and wouldn't dare call them un-Christian for what we see as a mistaken view. And we respectfully ask others recognize the Bible is not self-evident on these matters and grant us the same grace we extend to them.

Sorry Ricky, but insults from a dimwit man-child just don’t cut it. Go put on a fresh wifebeater and help your mom do the dishes for a change. Whether she’s told you or not, she’s tired of taking care of you. You can nuke your own hot pockets from now on and for the love of all that’s holy, take a shower before your McDonalds interview tmw. Your mom will be so disappointed if you get rejected again.

@CryptoCPA_ @BruceNorth46058 @ATrueMillennial Aww…wittle baby dowsn’t wike his wittle hewesy chawwenged?

@DavoustBaldPate @BruceNorth46058 @ATrueMillennial Ricky crawl back into your hole. Your thoughts are as shallow and irrelevant as yourself.

@BruceNorth46058 @CryptoCPA_ @ATrueMillennial Just answer the question.

@BradWitbeck @KaiSchwemmer Very few people pick up on the Senate issue. It was a horrible mistake switching them to a direct public vote. It essentially ruined the senate.

The real problem isn't universal suffrage. It's that we've changed how the Senate is now elected to direct vote, and oddly enough, we actually have too few congressmen. If each Congressman only oversaw something like 100k people or less, they would be FAR more accountable to the people they claim to represent, and running for congress would be more accessible to the average citizen. That said, I'd be down to explore a law barring people who won't return their shopping carts from voting 😉

Hit piece? More like Greatest Hits piece!

@LukeFHan I’ll join in if you change your mind. I thought your idea was more in the spirit of “righteous troublemaking”

My wife suggested we celebrate cleansing Monday by deep cleaning a room in the house. I suggested we dump out the cash registers and smash the machines at the coffee shop in the nearest megachurch. We're doing hers smh

@ranix1946 @BlackBlessedLDS No offense, but you’re not a reliable source of info based on the gross inaccuracies of your previous comments.

@CryptoCPA_ @BlackBlessedLDS Read the Bible. Get to know it well. Then you will be able to spot the counterfeit BOM easily. Debunked tropes. I heard the adult LDS class teacher say the LDS will return to Jackson County MO. Now they say they won't. Same for becoming a god on your own planet.

“Spread this fact to all the world: “Mormonism” is Truth!” - John Wesley Harmon Jr. 1881-1940; baptized 1900

@Rultpwr Creedists can be so creepy and off-putting

“tell me about the cloth that covers your balls and butthole or youre in a cult”

@JesseDornfeld @DiscipleFidei Creepy dude.

@DiscipleFidei Did you ask them about their underwear?

Went to a Mormon church today. AMA

🙄 Do anti-Mormons ever read anything besides recycled, long debunked tropes. Seriously, do they even read the a Bible? A careful reading of the Bible would at least lead them to question why creedal christianity is full of pagan, Hellenistic philosophy that is demonstrably unbibical.

@BlackBlessedLDS mormonism is a false gospel we were warned against by Jesus, Paul and the Apostles. Stick with the Bible, not some fabrication made with a common fortune telling method of the time, the "Peepstone in a hat" trick. mormonstories.org/top10toughissu…

You’re still trying to change the subject by bringing the BOM into a discussion of the trinity. That doesn’t help your argument. I’m not shifting from what the bible says. Quite the opposite. I’m asserting the Bible does not teach the trinity directly or indirectly. I’m also proposing that a plain reading of the text without presuppositions would never lead someone to reach the consubstantial trinity as the proper description of God. I’m using scholarship to support my claims. The only way someone can reach the trinity is by previous indoctrination from extrabiblical sources, cherrypicking verses, out of context reading, assuming the bible is univocal, and special pleading. The texts of the bible were composed over many generations, yet the trinity only came about during the relatively short period of time when pagan Hellenistic culture was influential, neoplatonic perfect being philosophy was dominant, and the apostles had weren’t there to denounce it. It’s the perfect recipe for a postbiblical, theological innovation to occur.

I’m not claiming the Bible is “univocal” in a simplistic sense, I’m saying it’s coherent, and its theology is drawn by synthesizing what multiple authors say together. That’s how essentially every major doctrine is formed. But notice the shift here: from “what does the text say?” to “what do later scholars agree it says?” Even on that point, the scholarly landscape isn’t nearly as one-sided as you’re implying. For example: • Larry Hurtado argues early devotion to Jesus as divine appears within the earliest Christian texts, not centuries later. • Richard Bauckham shows NT authors include Jesus within the unique identity of the one God of Israel. • N. T. Wright emphasizes that first-century Jewish monotheism was already being reworked around Jesus, not replaced by Greek philosophy. So even at the academic level, the claim that the Trinity is simply a late Greek invention is heavily debated. But more importantly, back to the text itself: • One God (Deut 6:4) • The Father is God (John 6:27) • The Son is called God (John 1:1; 20:28) • The Spirit is treated as personal and divine (Acts 5:3–4) • Yet they are distinguished (John 14–17) That’s the data set. The Trinity is an attempt to account for all of it without flattening one side. And on the “no one could have understood this” point, Scripture regularly shows truth unfolding over time. That’s not a bug, that’s the pattern. Which raises a bigger question: Why does the Bible show theology developing progressively, while the Book of Mormon presents fully developed post-resurrection categories centuries before Christ? That’s a much harder problem to solve than saying later Christians wrestled with their own texts.

If you are trying to assert the Bible is one uni-vocal narrative that’s demonstrably false. Before you move onto a new topic, let’s conclude the discussion of the trinity. Do you have any scholarship with consensus to present to support your dogmatic claim that trinity is biblical? The scholarly consensus along with the historical record strongly support the conclusion that the trinity is a postbiblical theological innovation so I’m curious what you’re basing your opinions off of.

I think there are two different issues getting blended together here. First, the Bible often teaches through progressive revelation, you don’t get everything fully packaged at once. Even in the Old Testament, you don’t see people using the name “Jesus” or laying out a complete Christology ahead of time, you get categories that are only fully understood later. That’s actually what we see in the New Testament: existing Jewish monotheism being expanded and clarified in light of who Jesus is. But that raises an interesting contrast: In the Book of Mormon, you have explicit references to Jesus by name and fully developed theology centuries before His birth. So the question is: Why does the Bible show understanding developing over time, while the BOM presents what looks like a post-resurrection theological framework much earlier in the timeline? Those are two very different patterns.

@Soupy_ @Mormonger 🙄 A creedist calling Mormons inconsistent, weird and very hypocritical.

@Mormonger Not just weird, inconsistent too.

Mormons are weird

I appreciate the thoughtful response, but all you’ve presented is your theological presuppositions that the trinity is biblical so therefore, it’s found indirectly throughout the old and New Testaments. The problem is that biblical and historical scholarship do not support that presupposition. The trinity concept is foreign to the biblical text and was foreign to the authors of the various texts. Can you provide any scholarly work with consensus supporting your claims that the trinity was taught by the ancient Israelites and enshrined in the scriptures? It seems the scholarship says exactly the opposite. The philosophical underpinnings of the trinity originated in Greek philosophy and the understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures was post-biblically reconciled or altered to arrive at a amalgamated concept of God palatable to the dominant culture of the 3-7th centuries.

The “Neoplatonism created the Trinity” claim doesn’t really hold up historically. Neoplatonism (Plotinus, etc.) develops in the 3rd century, but the core Trinitarian data and even proto-Trinitarian language shows up well before that: •New Testament (1st century): •Jesus included in the identity of the one God (1 Cor 8:6) •Called God (John 1:1; Heb 1:8) •Distinguished from the Father (John 17:5) •Spirit treated as personal and divine (Acts 5:3–4) •Early Christians (2nd century, pre-Neoplatonism influence): •Ignatius of Antioch calls Jesus “our God” multiple times •Justin Martyr speaks of Father, Son, and Spirit in coordinated divine language •Irenaeus describes the Son and Spirit as the “two hands of God” That’s all before the philosophical language of “essence” and “substance” gets formalized. So what actually happened wasn’t: “Greek philosophy created a new God” It was: Christians already had the data and later borrowed philosophical terms to defend it more precisely. Also, if this were just Hellenistic influence making God more “palatable,” it’s a strange result, because the Trinity is not simple, intuitive, or philosophically neat. It actually preserves tensions that philosophy would normally try to eliminate. So the better historical explanation is: The doctrine didn’t come from philosophy, it created the need for better philosophical language to describe what Scripture was already saying.

@BruceNorth46058 @DavoustBaldPate @ATrueMillennial Don’t waste your time trying to have a rational discussion with Ricky. He’s a middle aged, mom’s basement dwelling troll of the highest order. The guy’s got hot pocket stains on his tank top. Who cares what he posts.

@DavoustBaldPate @ATrueMillennial Yours has been answered before. Mine hasn't. Yours is a tired old saw. Mine is not. No Anti-Mo has given a response. Unless I count the likes of your weak reply. Is "dingleberry" ad homenim? Do childish insults make you a better debater? Do you believe in Christ? Let's see.

But anyone who’s studied history and biblical scholarship can easily disagree with your conclusion that the post-apostolic church was summarizing or articulating the Bible or doctrines taught by Christ or the apostles. Rather, they were reconciling and changing the Hebrew God into something more palatable and familiar to the dominant Hellenistic culture and philosophy of the time. The biblical godhead was fused with Neoplatonist perfect being philosophy to arrive at the consubstantial trinity and all of the philosophical addendums that go with it.

This is a fair description of how the conversation often feels, but it quietly assumes something that needs to be challenged: That both sides are just trading verses on equal footing. They’re not. The Trinitarian case isn’t built on one or two “oneness” verses like John 10:30 it’s built on the full data set of Scripture: •The Father is God (John 6:27) •The Son is God (John 1:1, Hebrews 1:8) •The Spirit is God (Acts 5:3–4) •Yet there is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4) And at the same time: •The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct (Matthew 3:16–17; John 14:16) That combination is exactly what forced the early church to articulate the doctrine—not invent it. So the creeds aren’t replacing Scripture they’re summarizing the tension Scripture already gives us. On the flip side, the LDS framework doesn’t just interpret those verses differently it redefines “God” as a category that can include multiple beings, which is something Scripture never does. And that’s why the “oneness” analogy (marriage, disciples, etc.) doesn’t actually resolve the issue because it flattens passages that clearly go beyond unity of purpose into shared divine identity (John 1:1; Isaiah 44:6). So the question isn’t: “Can you find verses that sound different?” Of course you can. The real question is: Which framework accounts for all the data without redefining core terms like “God”?

Look, you can read all of that into the text if you want. It’s not there and it goes against the plain meaning of the text than they were a married Jewish couple and produced several children together that are referred to as Jesus’’ siblings. You’re obviously very invested in denying that happened because of your particular theological dogmas. I’m sure you’re also aware that biblical scholarship does not support your conclusions. You’re welcome to believe whatever you want. Best to you.

@CryptoCPA_ @theblessedsalt @BebopJosh "Calm down" 🙄 No, it does not say that in the slightest. Mary herself says that she isn't going to have sex, and "until" here does not imply anything about what happened after the specified time, as it doesn't in Christ's great commission.

> “Joseph didn’t sleep with Mary UNTIL Jesus was born. Obviously they had sex after.” So Jesus won’t be with us after the end of the world? > “What?” He said: “I will be with you always UNTIL the end of the age.” > “Well He didn’t mean it that way.” It’s the same word and phrase construction in the Greek. > “Well, uh, hey what’s that??” *runs away*

@theblessedsalt @CheekyJesterton @BebopJosh You’ve got yourself twisted in knots trying to avoid the plain meaning of the text. It’s clear you’re very invested in finding ways to deny that Joseph and Mary obviously acted as a married Jewish couple and had children as the Bible indicates. Best to you.

@CryptoCPA_ @CheekyJesterton @BebopJosh But it’s not saying that at all! That’s his point!

@CCPISASSH0E Mormon theology is actual coherent and beautiful so Creedists have to wildly misrepresent it because when compared to the absolutely awful things traditional creedal Christians believe about God, Mormonism is a breath of fresh air and is actually biblical.

Mormonism is as believable as Scientology. Complete and utter nonsense 😂